Buckmaster and Another v Russell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Date | 21 June 1861 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 646
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 8 Jur. N. S. 155. Adopted, Chasemore v. Turner, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 522. See Langrish v. Watts, [1903] 1 K. B. 643.
[745] BUCKMARTEIR AND ANOTHER V. KUSSELL. J line li 1st, ISfil. [S. C. 8 Jur. N. S. 155. Adopted, Cluixe-inm-e v. Turner, 1.S75, L. K. 10 (.,. B. Ml. See Lumgr'mlt v. Jfatin, [1903] I K. B. f 4:i.] In answer to an application for a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations, the defendant wrote,-" [ have received a letter from Messrs. P. & L., solicitors, requesting me to pay you an account of 401. 9s. fid. 1 have no wish to have any-th|ing to do ^vith the lawyers : much less do I wish to deny a just debt. I cannot;, however, get; rid of the notion that my account with you was settled in 1.S51 : but as you declare it was not settled, I am willing to pay you 101. per annum until it is liquidated, Should this proposal meet with your approbation, we can make arrangements accordingly:"-Held, that this was not such an absolute unqualified acknowledgment and unconditional promise to pay as to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. This was an action for goods sold and delivered. Plea, never indebted, and the statute of limitations. Id C. B. (N. S.) 7. BUCKMASTER V. RUHSELL 647 The cause was tried before Williams, J., at the sittings in Middlesex after last Hilary Term, when a question arose as to whether a letter written by the defendants to the plaintiffs, in answer to one which he had received from the plaintiffs' solicitors demanding payment of the alleged debt, was a sufficient acknowledgment to take the case out of the statute. The defendant's letter was as follows :- "Dennington, Barnstaple, Devon, " April 2nd, 18(50. " Gentlemen,-I have received a letter from Messrs. Peard & Langdon, solicitors, of Barnstaple, requesting me to pay you an account of 401. 9s. 6d. I have no wish to have anything to do with the lawyers; much less do 1 wish to deny a just debt. I cannot, however, get rid of the notion that my account with you was settled when I left the army in 1851. But, as you declare it was not settled, I am willing to pay you 101. per annum until it is liquidated. Should this proposal meet with your approbation, we can make arrangements accordingly. " E. B. russell." The proposal did not meet the approbation of the plaintiffs; but their reply was not put in at the trial. This action was commenced in July, I860,- A verdict having been found for the defendant, with leave to the plaintiff's to move to enter a verdict for them for 261. 10s., [746] Parry, Serjt, in Easter Term last, obtained a rule nisi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Burrows and John Burrows v Mary Catherine Baker
...v. SowellENR 2 B. & Ald. 759. Hart v. PrendergastENR 14 M. & W. 741. Cockrill v. SparkesENR 1 H. & C. 699. Buckmaster v. RussellENR 10 C. B. N. S. 745. Statute of Limitations — Written Acknowledgment. 596 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. THOMAS BURROWS AND JOHN BURROWS v. MARY CATHERINE BAKER. Sta......
-
Archer v Leonard
...part payment of the costs. (a) 6 B. & Cr. 603. (b) 1 Lord Ray. 389; S. C., 1 Salk. 29. (c) 9 M. & W. 629. (d) 1 Ell. & Ell. 1052. (e) 10 C. B., N. S., 745. (f) 3 Eos. & Ein. 150; S. C., 32 Law Jour., Exch., (g) 3 Dr. 628. (h) 5 Bing. N. C. 455. (i) 4 Tyrwh. 775. (k) 3 Hare, 299. (l) 18 Q. B......